Physical Properties of Polyurethanes Produced from Polyols from Seed Oils: II. Foams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rigid polyurethane (PU) foams were prepared using three North American seed oil starting materials. Polyol with terminal primary hydroxyl groups synthesized from canola oil by ozonolysis and hydrogenation based technology, commercially available soybean based polyol and crude castor oil were reacted with aromatic diphenylmethane diisocyanate to prepare the foams. Their physical and thermal properties were studied and compared using dynamic mechanical analysis and thermogravimetric analysis techniques, and their cellular structures were investigated by scanning electron microscope. The chemical diversity of the starting materials allowed the evaluation of the effect of dangling chain on the properties of the foams. The reactivity of soybean oil‐derived polyols and of unrefined crude castor oil were found to be lower than that of the canola based polyol as shown by their processing parameters (cream, rising and gel times) and FTIR. Canola‐PU foam demonstrated better compressive properties than Soybean‐PU foam but less than Castor‐PU foam. The differences in performance were found to be related to the differences in the number and position of OH‐groups and dangling chains in the starting materials, and to the differences in cellular structure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".